R. Venugopal vs State of Karnataka

H. Billappa

The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 438 of Cr. P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is working as Computer Assistant in Kolar DC office and is ready to abide by all conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

It is alleged that deceased Geetha was in love with the petitioner. They married at Horanadu temple. They were residing at Kurubarapet, Kolar. The petitioner married one Deepa and kept her at Chadumanahalli. The petitioner, Deepa and the other accused were forcing the deceased to forgo her relationship with the petitioner. On 15.07.201.1, the petitioner secured deceased and admitted her to R.L. Jalappa Hospital. After treatment the deceased became alright and came back to Kolar. On 18.07.2011 the deceased did not return home. On 19.07.2011, at about 8.45 p.m. the deceased called her younger brother over phone and informed that she has consumed poison and she is lying at Chadumanahalli gate. Thereafter, Harish, Malini and Patnamma went there. They saw the deceased lying dead. A case in crime No. 268/2011 of Kolar Police Station has been registered for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submit that there is no abettment and except the petitioner all other accused have been granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail.

As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the investigation is going on and the petitioner has abetted suicide and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for consideration is;

Whether the petitioner can be granted anticipatory hail?

It is relevant to note, the allegations are that the deceased and the petitioner were in love with each other and they married at Horanadu temple and they were staying at Kolar. The Petitioner married one Deepa and she was kept at Chadumanahalli. The petitioner, Deepa and the other accused were forcing the deceased to forgo her relationship with the petitioner. The deceased has committed suicide. Except the petitioner all other accused have been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner is working as Computer Assistant in DC Office at Kolar and he is available for investigation. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:

i. In the event of his arrest in Crime No. 268/2011 of Kolar Rural Police station, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs 25,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within five days from today and shall co-operate with the I.O., for investigation as and when required.

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses.

iv. If the petitioner violates any condition, the respondent State can move for cancellation of the bail.

Furnish the operative portion of the order.